Well, I'm probably not the guy that you should ask, but from my perspective, you are writing in a very flowery prose, almost jovial, and that just didn't mesh with the reality of the situation.

The reason you assume I would think it was silly is because I am writing "in a very flowery prose" and this doesn't "mesh with the reality of the situation"?

Let's put the fact that I am not writing in a very flowery prose off the table for now. What's important so far is that your response does not make sense as an answer to the question. Keep in mind I am asking this question to help me judge and understand your specific levels of difficulty in understanding conversational cues and the motives or interpretations of others. I am also not sending "mixed signals". I'm being extremely direct and not asking a difficult or compound question.

Do you think you could attempt again to answer the question? Have you got even a wild guess at what reason someone would have for finding that addendum silly or unnecessary?

You see, I was born in 1986. My mother was still pregnant with me when Chernobyl happened. A theory has been floated about, that most of my flaws, the issues I've been dealing with my whole life are a result of this disaster, and I don't think I have it in me to forgive the incompetent bastards that allowed it to happen. But of course, I have no real proof, and that itself is far more infuriating than anything anyone has ever said to me; to constantly question my existence, to never know for sure. If I am not reading my posts carefully it is because I am in a blind rage from which I will never awaken from, and for this I am sorry.

Chernobyl caused your autism? Have you ever considered you just lost the genetic lottery? That you were shit out of luck? Or do you need something or someone to blame it on?

Or - after reading your posts in this thread - maybe you don't have autism or anything like that. And maybe those "flaws" aren't all that special or serious. Maybe you're just using them to explain why you're such a horrible person, while in fact, it's because you are a horrible person. But it's not your fault nobody wanted to sit next to you in class, it's your nuclear flaws and the people that created them! And the hate you feel towards nuclear energy is actually an expression of your self-loathing, because deep down - in the corners of your mind that haven't been reached by your relentless self-indoctrination - you know nuclear energy has nothing to do with you being a failed human being.

well, I think you'll find Willem is a Belgian historian-in-training (unless you've been reading the horrors thread, because he's fired) so if he isn't qualified to diagnose you of autism via the internet then who is?

alternately you can address anything else anyone has said to you._________________Once, at a local NOW meeting where I was the only male among about a dozen women, a feminism trivia contest was held. I came in third.

Well, I'm probably not the guy that you should ask, but from my perspective, you are writing in a very flowery prose, almost jovial, and that just didn't mesh with the reality of the situation.

The reason you assume I would think it was silly is because I am writing "in a very flowery prose" and this doesn't "mesh with the reality of the situation"?

Let's put the fact that I am not writing in a very flowery prose off the table for now. What's important so far is that your response does not make sense as an answer to the question. Keep in mind I am asking this question to help me judge and understand your specific levels of difficulty in understanding conversational cues and the motives or interpretations of others. I am also not sending "mixed signals". I'm being extremely direct and not asking a difficult or compound question.

Do you think you could attempt again to answer the question? Have you got even a wild guess at what reason someone would have for finding that addendum silly or unnecessary?

If not, that's okay. I can move on to the next question.

If need be, I could come up with 5-10 possible reasons, although you would probably find most of them unlikely.

You are posing your question as a challenge which I find strange to say the least.

eiden wrote:

If you sit here and try to make sense of this sentence, while simultaneously reminding yourself that Thy thinks it makes perfect sense, you can hear the ocean.

1. You get a very inappropriate zen feeling from this statement, as if you are currently sitting in a yoga position listening to the tsunami that passed you unharmed. The flowery prose.

2. There's a slight tinge of elitism coming from the statement itself, reminding the audience that Thy is much like a static seashell on the beach, an object to be picked up and thrown around, and listened to only for purposes of entertainment, this plays down my argument concerning the danger to the people of Japan.

3. The statement also undermines any opinion Thy might have, suggesting that things he might find sensible are also things most would find nonsensical, like the additional danger to the citizens of Tokyo from radiation.

4. The reference the statement itself made, while having awkward grammar, could be understood without any additional comment made about it, especially in a thread as cluttered as this one, about an important topic.

2. There's a slight tinge of elitism coming from the statement itself, reminding the audience that Thy is much like a static seashell on the beach, an object to be picked up and thrown around, and listened to only for purposes of entertainment, this plays down my argument concerning the danger to the people of Japan.

3. The statement also undermines any opinion Thy might have, suggesting that things he might find sensible are also things most would find nonsensical, like the additional danger to the citizens of Tokyo from radiation.

so you're referring to yourself in the third person now? jesus h christ._________________dogs have ownerscats have staff

Last edited by zeezee on Sun Apr 10, 2011 12:11 pm; edited 1 time in total

What the fuck? No. That's not true at all. Lacking the capacity for empathy sociopathy/antisocial personality disorder, not autism.

Who the fuck is telling you that people with autism don't have empathy? It's so wrong, it boggles the mind.

Quote:

The interaction between empathy and autism spectrum disorders is a complex and ongoing field of research.

Quote:

Alexithymia

Research suggests that 85% of ASD individuals have alexithymia,[44] which involves not just the inability to verbally express emotions, but specifically the inability to identify emotional states in self or others.[45] According to recent fMRI studies[46] the syndrome of alexithymia, a condition in which an individual is rendered incapable of recognising and articulating emotional arousal in self or others, is responsible for a severe lack of emotional empathy.[46] The lack of empathic attunement inherent to alexithymic states may reduce quality[47] and satisfaction[48] of relationships.

Yes, it is not as black and white as my generalization might have suggested sam.

Well, I'm probably not the guy that you should ask, but from my perspective, you are writing in a very flowery prose, almost jovial, and that just didn't mesh with the reality of the situation.

The reason you assume I would think it was silly is because I am writing "in a very flowery prose" and this doesn't "mesh with the reality of the situation"?

Let's put the fact that I am not writing in a very flowery prose off the table for now. What's important so far is that your response does not make sense as an answer to the question. Keep in mind I am asking this question to help me judge and understand your specific levels of difficulty in understanding conversational cues and the motives or interpretations of others. I am also not sending "mixed signals". I'm being extremely direct and not asking a difficult or compound question.

Do you think you could attempt again to answer the question? Have you got even a wild guess at what reason someone would have for finding that addendum silly or unnecessary?

If not, that's okay. I can move on to the next question.

If need be, I could come up with 5-10 possible reasons, although you would probably find most of them unlikely.

You are posing your question as a challenge which I find strange to say the least.

It is not very strange. I have announced unambiguously why I am doing it. I am straightforwardly inquiring into questions which I believe will help me judge and understand your specific levels of difficulty in understanding conversational cues and the motives or interpretations of others. You can note largely the exact same phrasing above.

What I've got so far does, lead me to conclude that for whatever reason (I'm not going to internet diagnose autism but I would be profoundly surprised if you did not actually have an ASD) you do realistically have a severe challenge in interpreting others or following conversational and argumentative processes, in a way which leads you to be completely off the wall in attempting to communicate or defend ideas. Issues like you being patronizing exist as they do because, in a way, you are not equipped to understand why you are acting bad or irrational, unequipped for the response (and unequipped to avoid or extinguish it) and these are a matter of, if anything, your social and interpersonal blindness(es).

Well, I'm probably not the guy that you should ask, but from my perspective, you are writing in a very flowery prose, almost jovial, and that just didn't mesh with the reality of the situation.

The reason you assume I would think it was silly is because I am writing "in a very flowery prose" and this doesn't "mesh with the reality of the situation"?

Let's put the fact that I am not writing in a very flowery prose off the table for now. What's important so far is that your response does not make sense as an answer to the question. Keep in mind I am asking this question to help me judge and understand your specific levels of difficulty in understanding conversational cues and the motives or interpretations of others. I am also not sending "mixed signals". I'm being extremely direct and not asking a difficult or compound question.

Do you think you could attempt again to answer the question? Have you got even a wild guess at what reason someone would have for finding that addendum silly or unnecessary?

If not, that's okay. I can move on to the next question.

If need be, I could come up with 5-10 possible reasons, although you would probably find most of them unlikely.

You are posing your question as a challenge which I find strange to say the least.

It is not very strange. I have announced unambiguously why I am doing it. I am straightforwardly inquiring into questions which I believe will help me judge and understand your specific levels of difficulty in understanding conversational cues and the motives or interpretations of others. You can note largely the exact same phrasing above.

What I've got so far does, lead me to conclude that for whatever reason (I'm not going to internet diagnose autism but I would be profoundly surprised if you did not actually have an ASD) you do realistically have a severe challenge in interpreting others or following conversational and argumentative processes, in a way which leads you to be completely off the wall in attempting to communicate or defend ideas. Issues like you being patronizing exist as they do because, in a way, you are not equipped to understand why you are acting bad or irrational, unequipped for the response (and unequipped to avoid or extinguish it) and these are a matter of, if anything, your social and interpersonal blindness(es).

That's as far as I will look into it, though.

Please do go on, don't be so mysterious.

Your words don't stand on their own you know.

Why don't you cite examples?

It seems like such a shame to stop there, out of the goodness of your heart, please do continue.